Actually, Rhapsody is much better than the both, and in fact burns are only $0.79, not the $1.00. You can get prepaid cards for $15 at 7-11 which include a month of service and 15 burns.
Check out my review and some history at http://www.livejournal.com/users/slimyslimy/3961.h tml?nc=1
I ran StrangeSearch (www.strangesearch.net, a great GPL piece of software) here at Stevens Institute of Technology, and aptly called it SIT Search.
It got about 10,000 hits a day and when IT staff found out about it they promptly told me to shut it down. I tried to explain to them that I would help the bandwidth situation, but they did not want to hear about it, esp. since they have recently begun "packetshaping".
Additionally, they said I was even more liabable then the folks just running the regular P2P apps. Go figure.
This is the sort of thing that makes it hard for legitimate for-profit WISPs (who use legal equipment) to compete with these hobbyists networks. The gear that WISPs have to pay $1000 for, the hobbyists cobble together for $200.
I would wager to say that if a hobbyist can aquire the same equipment for much less money without stealing anything I would say the fundamental flaw in this system isn't the hobbyist's problem. I understand the need for FCC regulations but this provides a very good counter-example.
If you've never been to EPCOT at Walt Disney World, the attraction called Spaceship Earth (it's the REALLY BIG golf ball) is a slow-moving ride about the progress of communication. It is, of course, sponsored by AT&T.
Throughout this attraction you pass animatronic exhibits that show the discovery of fire, the history of written works, the dark ages, and the renaissance. Then they show television, telephones, and other modern inventions.
After a view of the top of the inside of big ball (it's like a planetarium), you go through some highly (AT&T branded) exhibits about "what's next for communication in the near as well as the not-so-distant future.
Do you know what they displayed? VIDEO PHONES, AND NOTHING BUT THEM! There must be at least 5 exhibits showing off video phones, and no other improvements in technology. The discovery of fire only got one exhibit! After a contemplative look about the history of the transfer of information over thousands of years, I thought to myself, "is the best they can come up with is VIDEO PHONES?"
Once we get video phones, is that it? We are communication-complete? I don't get it. Videophones are obviously NOT the future. It is blatant hype and although it seems like the obvious next step (like radio->television), it is not. I'm out of ideas, but video phones are nothing but hype.
They have it. It's called Para Para Paradise, which is similar to the old Genesis Activator (I think that's what it's called).
The game is based on the dance called the Para, and has similar game play to DDR, except you wave your hands while standing in a chamber-like area with sensors on the ground. I found a page with a little more information at http://www2.mileniumnet.com.br/~ddr/old/ppp.htm
For any company that wants to be successful in the long run, their main responsibility should be to follow their mission and vision statement, which, more often than not, is to provide or produce valuable products/services to its customers, not to its shareholders. No wonder why so many businesses fail - the money, and profit, comes from the customer/client, NOT the shareholders.
I work for a financial planning firm that was looking for a digital security policy that would involve digital signatures/encryption.
And I ran into the same problem that you did. Every article on the web seems to focus on theory of the matter, as well as some type of history on the topic, but they never talk about typical scenarios, recommended applications, etc.
Although it's only my opinion, I think I have figured out why: almost no one does this on a public level. For example, in our firm, we may decide to use some version of PGP that will attach to Microsoft Outlook so we could all have private keys and send mail inside of the firm. Another option is to use a CA server, so we can use the S/MIME capability of Outlook. And the list goes on. There are a hundred different ways of doing it, and none of them are compatible with each other. So, basically, you're forced to pick a system and stick with it, and any hopes of using your system publically will be next to impossible.
It's a very messy arena, especially when you'll be dealing with the public, your clients, or providers, because then you are taking on nasty technical support responsibilities.
In my experience, I have come to realize that a few things are (possibly intentionally) left unclarified in the signature/encryption area. First of all, if you are only doing internal signatures and encryption, you don't need to get a "certificate" from any of the public vendors. You can generate your own from your very own CA. (All a CA really is is a few scripts that generate keys). Programs that use S/MIME are almost plug-and-go for security, just install the certificate into the system (in Windows, you do this in Internet Explorer), and that's it.
If you are doing anything more complicated than that, things get very hairy. You might want to try a different way to solve your problem (possibly even non-technically), or hire a consultant who is highly experienced with digital signatures. It is a very confusing and complicated arena which I don't fully understand myself, but, it seems like if you can pull it off, you'll be WELL ahead of the curve of many other businesses.
This is just yet another reason...
on
RIAA Sues Audiogalaxy
·
· Score: 1, Informative
to use a non-centralized network, such as Gnutella. All of these centralized networks (a la Napster, AG, etc.), while very good (AG tended to have a very large variety of music), are sitting ducks for the RIAA/MPAA to come after them. Centralized networks are too easy to kill, and it's raising the RIAA's spirits after each "victory". These people need to face something that is impossible to defeat, so they are forced to seriously reconsider what they're doing.
Also, if you're a Windows user and feel like trying Gnutella allow me to recommend Gnucleus, a GPL'd Gnutella client with Ultrapeers, file hashing no spyware, and multisource downloading. Check out http://www.gnucleus.net. Linux or other users, there are a plethora of clients available, such as Limewire (written in Java).
I quote: "in order to help plug the hole, watermark detectors would be required in" -- are you sitting down? -- "all devices that perform analog to digital conversions."
Oh, and I think after they get this "hole" filled in I think they should really get it through their heads that I have a "crap detector" in my analog-neural converter. I think they should just skip all of this baloney and make all musical analog to digital conversion illegal. Once and for all it will just end this silly issue
Correct me if I'm wrong (please), but wouldn't this create another Artists Alliance, possibly called the Downloading Industry Artist's Alliance (DIAA), another "music industry-benefitting" firm that the real creators, the artists, have little control of and just end up getting the short end of the stick?
If KaZaA wants to go neo-Napster-style and try to charge its members for access, then fine, but to levy Internet access just to extend the artificial scaricity of music is ridiculous.
Ad-aware removes some files that are part of KaZaA Lite that are meant to fool the modified KaZaA into thinking that the spyware is still there. You probably removed the "dummy files" that need to be in place to fool the KaZaA in KaZaA Lite.
You probably didn't have spyware afterall, but ended up crippling KaZaA Lite with Ad-Aware:-)
Anyway, why are you using that proprietary, closed source P2P tool anyway? Check out Gnucleus for Windows, a GPLed Gnutella client with swarming and SuperNode support, and tons of users without spyware, limits, or the RIAA on its tail: (http://www.gnucleus.net)
That would require that I would install it with my application
and
I've to test my product with every possible version of applications that I use/interact.
Assuming that Internet Explorer / Windows Media/etc. can no longer become a programmer's assumption, I'd expect standards compliance to become pretty much important (much like when the web was not dominated by IE users). If you write your program to be basically standards compliant, if the user is your average user than he or she probably has a suitable browser installed (IE, Netscape, Mozilla, etc.). If you're installing an application that requires HTML/HTTP capabilites, I think it would be reasonable to include with your product a message like "requires a W3C version x web browser" or something similar. Anyway, providing a well-tested product is good for a programmer's wallet, right?
And, if you really need some extra whiz-bang feature of a particular product, then you'll have to require or bundle the module or dependent application. Every version of Quicken I've ever installs always installs its minimum required version of Internet Explorer.
By the way, AFAIK no Internet Explorer !imply the absence of the MSHTML libraries or web browser controls. I would doubt that every MS-library using product would suddenly break if they aren't designed in a modular fashion and IE isn't around.
Everyone in your wagon has died. Would you like to write your epitaph?
That's what they should do with this technology.
Actually, now that I think of it, if people could hook up to different forums with this device, i.e., Appalachian Trail forums, I think this could be mighty useful. For example "Note: at this location don't climb up the ridge; take the trail by the brook instead."
I would say that you are quite a unique person: you are excited about the compatability of Windows, but then claim that OSes should be lightweight. Where do all of the driver and support files go?
Anyway, I am not out to continue an annoying flame war. There are a number of things that you probably don't have an in-depth understanding of about operating systems and usability, combined with the fact that you are one of the many people with reasonless hatred for Apple products (maybe because they remind you of the Apple IIs you used in grammar school?).
Anyway, there are a few points I would like to bring out. FireWire, which you have only seen on "a few macs" and there are few compatabile products for, is a trademark of Apple. They are one of the major proponents of the IEEE1394 standard. Additionally, nearly every FireWire product in the basic hardware areas (external storage, CD-RW, Digital Cameras, Video Cameras, etc.) are out-of-box usable with MacOS (yeah OS X, too). In most cases you don't even need to install a driver for these products. You are misinformed on the IEEE1394 issue.
Quartz is a display system that MacOS X uses to translate graphical instructions from programs onto the display. It is based on DisplayPDF, which was designed completely aside from Adobe (in fact, Apple specifically chose not to collaborate with Adobe to avoid licensing costs). If you feel that other systems do not have equivalents, look at Windows, which uses a large collection of un-unified display systems, such as DirectX and GDI to do the same thing that Quartz does (I believe Windows XP does have even additional quartz-like features as well). If you are a Linux zealot, look at QT or gtk, along with the X Windowing system. The "fancy shit" that you don't want your operating system to do, is doing it anyway, except maybe not in the shape of round blue bubbles, probably using just as much CPU on the rectangles that you strangely crave.
Further, I would like to point out to you that Quartz has nothing to do with the appearance of the user interface. Quartz, for your information, could just as easily draw "rectangles" and "text" as the Aqua interface, which is responsible for the jewel-like appearace which you seem to dislike.
Explorer does not provide Windows with the desktop background, by the way. That is provided by the OS.
As already mentioned by me, you are probably just too uninformed. If all you have read about Mac OS X is how pretty it is, you must not be looking in the right places for information. Likewise, you are probably missing the technical differences between Windows XP and Windows 98 fully. I could go on all day to tell you what is going on under the hood of Mac OS X, but that's been done too many times. Maybe it would be nice to add that I installed Mac OS X 4 months ago, and not a single application has crashed (which has included the installation of several programs and pieces of hardware).
By the way, it was very nice of you to say "that's it, period" three times, and to use the word "craptastically" in a sentence. Truly impressive.
Next time try not to speak to loudly before you know all of the facts.
Humans have been making new humans ever since intercourse was invented. A lot of women have died when giving birth, and a large number of babies have died in the birth giving process. In the early days, there were also a large number of birth defects in newborns because of problems in delivery. Lucky for us, this nasty habit of dying mothers and children, as well as the problem of defection has gone a way for a large part.
Why? Scientists figured things out.
So, what I say to those who feel that cloning is far too risky is the following: I'm sure they'll figure it all out in due time and make it just as risky as "natural reproduction".
Additionally, I have yet to see why reproduction through cloning is any more unethical than reproduction through intercourse. Reproduction is reproduction. I don't see us being opposed to other species that reproduce in other fashions (see: Plants; see: single-celled creatures). Also, note that in Huxley's Brave New World, the social problem really wasn't with cloning, or really even the fact that the government raised all of the cloned children; the problem was that the people weren't happy, and had to take drugs to stay emotionally alive! (I would assume that people wouldn't put a system like that into place?)
So, what is so unnatural about cloning in the end? Just because we are only familiar with the ideas of the "gene pool" and the male+female=baby equation, we can't be ignorant to new approaches to old systems. Plus, natural selection still applies (i.e., self-reproducing aeombae would be long-extinct if they could not survive).
Cloning is just human evolution happening under our eyes. I'm sure things will work out fine with everything. People won't make slave races, because as far as I know, all people, including clones, are treated as equal humans. Slavery, as far as I know, is prohibited in most countries, so unless some dope repeals constitutions, etc., slavery will NOT exist. (A previous poster related back to the days of slavery and I must say that it was quite an ignorant post).
Not to go offtopic on Mac OS X, but X is the opposite of the crude OS 9. Anyway, Apple is offering a fair solution of allowing the user to run the old operating system within its own process (Classic). That way they don't have to for the most part worry about weeding out a few function calls for every upgrade or disallowing programs to run (with the exception of some disk utilities). Apple isn't declaring themselves bosses of the computer users of the world and making profound "You can't use this software/driver, etc."...
MS could at least be sensible in this so-called transition period.
I've never used Windows XP, but I have used two other products that use Microsoft's feature of "Error Reporting". I am the admin of a medium-sized Windows network of about 25 users (but I use Mac OS X and LinuxPPC at home).
This happens to me at work all the time: Someone will come up to me and say, "Uh, something came up on my computer and said something about a problem and to say yes to help fix it. I clicked Yes. Was that OK?"
How many people will say, "Duh, uh, OK Microsoft sure I'll help you fix my problem." Most computer users out there aren't knowledgeable to take candy from strangers (or, in this case, to give the candy).
Maybe many/.ers will know to choose whether or not to send a crash dump, but what about that person's spouse who checks his or her email at night, and IE crashes and then he or she sends the crash dump. The point is that Microsoft will end up getting the informationthey want, regardless to whether or not they appear to be voluntary.
Regarding your issue with the Sidewinder, the reason for that is twofold: 1) they want you to buy another $100+ joystick that has the features you want 2) keyboard mapping allows programmers to bypass Microsoft APIs like DirectInput because anyone can program the keyboard without an API - MS wants to stop those programmers nasty habits of making things too portable to other OSes.
By the way I agree with a previous poster who said that MS would ignore official "watch-dogs"; I'm sure somewhere deep down they will have a nice tally of how many people have 600 KB porno MPEGs in their RAM right after the memory segments with the emails to their wives.
Re:First Application Of This...
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
I think we should find the answer to whether the Monkey Quotient is true, considering we have an endless source of random information.
O Romeo, O Banana
Microsoft is really pushing its format, specifically audio because of its superiority over MP3 and the fact that most audio is stored on expensive flash memory (yes, it's true -- a 64kbps WMA file sounds just as good as a 128kbps MP3). If you don't believe me, check out the Windows Media Site and look at the hardware section.
Windows Media Audio is not the same as MP3, at all. WMA is a completely separate format developed by Microsoft in direct competition to the MPEG formats, specifically MP3.
True, many Windows Media Streams such as ASFs happen to have MP3 as its audio codec, but when a stream is in WMA, it has been proven over and over that Windows Media Audio sounds far better than MP3 when compared at the same bitrates. If you have the newest version of Winamp there is even a WMA compressor plug-in that you can try out to prove it to yourself.
Sorry if I sound too much like a Microsoft advocate on this, but Windows Media really impresses me and I hope it goes open soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Rhapsody is much better than the both, and in fact burns are only $0.79, not the $1.00. You can get prepaid cards for $15 at 7-11 which include a month of service and 15 burns.
h tml?nc=1
Check out my review and some history at http://www.livejournal.com/users/slimyslimy/3961.
I ran StrangeSearch (www.strangesearch.net, a great GPL piece of software) here at Stevens Institute of Technology, and aptly called it SIT Search.
It got about 10,000 hits a day and when IT staff found out about it they promptly told me to shut it down. I tried to explain to them that I would help the bandwidth situation, but they did not want to hear about it, esp. since they have recently begun "packetshaping".
Additionally, they said I was even more liabable then the folks just running the regular P2P apps. Go figure.
I would wager to say that if a hobbyist can aquire the same equipment for much less money without stealing anything I would say the fundamental flaw in this system isn't the hobbyist's problem. I understand the need for FCC regulations but this provides a very good counter-example.
If you've never been to EPCOT at Walt Disney World, the attraction called Spaceship Earth (it's the REALLY BIG golf ball) is a slow-moving ride about the progress of communication. It is, of course, sponsored by AT&T.
Throughout this attraction you pass animatronic exhibits that show the discovery of fire, the history of written works, the dark ages, and the renaissance. Then they show television, telephones, and other modern inventions.
After a view of the top of the inside of big ball (it's like a planetarium), you go through some highly (AT&T branded) exhibits about "what's next for communication in the near as well as the not-so-distant future.
Do you know what they displayed? VIDEO PHONES, AND NOTHING BUT THEM! There must be at least 5 exhibits showing off video phones, and no other improvements in technology. The discovery of fire only got one exhibit! After a contemplative look about the history of the transfer of information over thousands of years, I thought to myself, "is the best they can come up with is VIDEO PHONES?"
Once we get video phones, is that it? We are communication-complete? I don't get it. Videophones are obviously NOT the future. It is blatant hype and although it seems like the obvious next step (like radio->television), it is not. I'm out of ideas, but video phones are nothing but hype.
They have it. It's called Para Para Paradise, which is similar to the old Genesis Activator (I think that's what it's called).
The game is based on the dance called the Para, and has similar game play to DDR, except you wave your hands while standing in a chamber-like area with sensors on the ground. I found a page with a little more information at http://www2.mileniumnet.com.br/~ddr/old/ppp.htm
Now some people are:
Assumed to be soon guilty and searched for until arrested,
Then innocent,
Until proven guilty?
I disagree.
For any company that wants to be successful in the long run, their main responsibility should be to follow their mission and vision statement, which, more often than not, is to provide or produce valuable products/services to its customers, not to its shareholders. No wonder why so many businesses fail - the money, and profit, comes from the customer/client, NOT the shareholders.
I work for a financial planning firm that was looking for a digital security policy that would involve digital signatures/encryption.
And I ran into the same problem that you did. Every article on the web seems to focus on theory of the matter, as well as some type of history on the topic, but they never talk about typical scenarios, recommended applications, etc.
Although it's only my opinion, I think I have figured out why: almost no one does this on a public level. For example, in our firm, we may decide to use some version of PGP that will attach to Microsoft Outlook so we could all have private keys and send mail inside of the firm. Another option is to use a CA server, so we can use the S/MIME capability of Outlook. And the list goes on. There are a hundred different ways of doing it, and none of them are compatible with each other. So, basically, you're forced to pick a system and stick with it, and any hopes of using your system publically will be next to impossible.
It's a very messy arena, especially when you'll be dealing with the public, your clients, or providers, because then you are taking on nasty technical support responsibilities.
In my experience, I have come to realize that a few things are (possibly intentionally) left unclarified in the signature/encryption area. First of all, if you are only doing internal signatures and encryption, you don't need to get a "certificate" from any of the public vendors. You can generate your own from your very own CA. (All a CA really is is a few scripts that generate keys). Programs that use S/MIME are almost plug-and-go for security, just install the certificate into the system (in Windows, you do this in Internet Explorer), and that's it.
If you are doing anything more complicated than that, things get very hairy. You might want to try a different way to solve your problem (possibly even non-technically), or hire a consultant who is highly experienced with digital signatures. It is a very confusing and complicated arena which I don't fully understand myself, but, it seems like if you can pull it off, you'll be WELL ahead of the curve of many other businesses.
to use a non-centralized network, such as Gnutella. All of these centralized networks (a la Napster, AG, etc.), while very good (AG tended to have a very large variety of music), are sitting ducks for the RIAA/MPAA to come after them. Centralized networks are too easy to kill, and it's raising the RIAA's spirits after each "victory". These people need to face something that is impossible to defeat, so they are forced to seriously reconsider what they're doing.
Also, if you're a Windows user and feel like trying Gnutella allow me to recommend Gnucleus, a GPL'd Gnutella client with Ultrapeers, file hashing no spyware, and multisource downloading. Check out http://www.gnucleus.net. Linux or other users, there are a plethora of clients available, such as Limewire (written in Java).
Oh, and I think after they get this "hole" filled in I think they should really get it through their heads that I have a "crap detector" in my analog-neural converter. I think they should just skip all of this baloney and make all musical analog to digital conversion illegal. Once and for all it will just end this silly issue
Correct me if I'm wrong (please), but wouldn't this create another Artists Alliance, possibly called the Downloading Industry Artist's Alliance (DIAA), another "music industry-benefitting" firm that the real creators, the artists, have little control of and just end up getting the short end of the stick?
If KaZaA wants to go neo-Napster-style and try to charge its members for access, then fine, but to levy Internet access just to extend the artificial scaricity of music is ridiculous.
Ooops.
Ad-aware removes some files that are part of KaZaA Lite that are meant to fool the modified KaZaA into thinking that the spyware is still there. You probably removed the "dummy files" that need to be in place to fool the KaZaA in KaZaA Lite.
You probably didn't have spyware afterall, but ended up crippling KaZaA Lite with Ad-Aware :-)
Anyway, why are you using that proprietary, closed source P2P tool anyway? Check out Gnucleus for Windows, a GPLed Gnutella client with swarming and SuperNode support, and tons of users without spyware, limits, or the RIAA on its tail: (http://www.gnucleus.net)
That would require that I would install it with my application
and
I've to test my product with every possible version of applications that I use/interact.
Assuming that Internet Explorer / Windows Media /etc. can no longer become a programmer's assumption, I'd expect standards compliance to become pretty much important (much like when the web was not dominated by IE users). If you write your program to be basically standards compliant, if the user is your average user than he or she probably has a suitable browser installed (IE, Netscape, Mozilla, etc.). If you're installing an application that requires HTML/HTTP capabilites, I think it would be reasonable to include with your product a message like "requires a W3C version x web browser" or something similar. Anyway, providing a well-tested product is good for a programmer's wallet, right?
And, if you really need some extra whiz-bang feature of a particular product, then you'll have to require or bundle the module or dependent application. Every version of Quicken I've ever installs always installs its minimum required version of Internet Explorer.
By the way, AFAIK no Internet Explorer !imply the absence of the MSHTML libraries or web browser controls. I would doubt that every MS-library using product would suddenly break if they aren't designed in a modular fashion and IE isn't around.
I always thought "NT" stood for "Northern Telecom".
Look on the side of a Windows NT or Windows 2000 retail box. It says right on the side, "NT is a trademark of Northern Telecom Limited."
hmmmm
What is Apple going to call their version?
iCab...taken
iPod...taken
Guess they'll just have to stick with computers...
Everyone in your wagon has died. Would you like to write your epitaph?
That's what they should do with this technology.
Actually, now that I think of it, if people could hook up to different forums with this device, i.e., Appalachian Trail forums, I think this could be mighty useful. For example "Note: at this location don't climb up the ridge; take the trail by the brook instead."
I would say that you are quite a unique person: you are excited about the compatability of Windows, but then claim that OSes should be lightweight. Where do all of the driver and support files go?
Anyway, I am not out to continue an annoying flame war. There are a number of things that you probably don't have an in-depth understanding of about operating systems and usability, combined with the fact that you are one of the many people with reasonless hatred for Apple products (maybe because they remind you of the Apple IIs you used in grammar school?).
Anyway, there are a few points I would like to bring out. FireWire, which you have only seen on "a few macs" and there are few compatabile products for, is a trademark of Apple. They are one of the major proponents of the IEEE1394 standard. Additionally, nearly every FireWire product in the basic hardware areas (external storage, CD-RW, Digital Cameras, Video Cameras, etc.) are out-of-box usable with MacOS (yeah OS X, too). In most cases you don't even need to install a driver for these products. You are misinformed on the IEEE1394 issue.
Quartz is a display system that MacOS X uses to translate graphical instructions from programs onto the display. It is based on DisplayPDF, which was designed completely aside from Adobe (in fact, Apple specifically chose not to collaborate with Adobe to avoid licensing costs). If you feel that other systems do not have equivalents, look at Windows, which uses a large collection of un-unified display systems, such as DirectX and GDI to do the same thing that Quartz does (I believe Windows XP does have even additional quartz-like features as well). If you are a Linux zealot, look at QT or gtk, along with the X Windowing system. The "fancy shit" that you don't want your operating system to do, is doing it anyway, except maybe not in the shape of round blue bubbles, probably using just as much CPU on the rectangles that you strangely crave.
Further, I would like to point out to you that Quartz has nothing to do with the appearance of the user interface. Quartz, for your information, could just as easily draw "rectangles" and "text" as the Aqua interface, which is responsible for the jewel-like appearace which you seem to dislike.
Explorer does not provide Windows with the desktop background, by the way. That is provided by the OS.
As already mentioned by me, you are probably just too uninformed. If all you have read about Mac OS X is how pretty it is, you must not be looking in the right places for information. Likewise, you are probably missing the technical differences between Windows XP and Windows 98 fully. I could go on all day to tell you what is going on under the hood of Mac OS X, but that's been done too many times. Maybe it would be nice to add that I installed Mac OS X 4 months ago, and not a single application has crashed (which has included the installation of several programs and pieces of hardware).
By the way, it was very nice of you to say "that's it, period" three times, and to use the word "craptastically" in a sentence. Truly impressive.
Next time try not to speak to loudly before you know all of the facts.
I send you this poem in order to have your XXX PINK TEENS 100% FREE!
Please pardon my non-technical speak:
What's the big deal with cloning humans?
Humans have been making new humans ever since intercourse was invented. A lot of women have died when giving birth, and a large number of babies have died in the birth giving process. In the early days, there were also a large number of birth defects in newborns because of problems in delivery. Lucky for us, this nasty habit of dying mothers and children, as well as the problem of defection has gone a way for a large part.
Why? Scientists figured things out.
So, what I say to those who feel that cloning is far too risky is the following: I'm sure they'll figure it all out in due time and make it just as risky as "natural reproduction".
Additionally, I have yet to see why reproduction through cloning is any more unethical than reproduction through intercourse. Reproduction is reproduction. I don't see us being opposed to other species that reproduce in other fashions (see: Plants; see: single-celled creatures). Also, note that in Huxley's Brave New World, the social problem really wasn't with cloning, or really even the fact that the government raised all of the cloned children; the problem was that the people weren't happy, and had to take drugs to stay emotionally alive! (I would assume that people wouldn't put a system like that into place?)
So, what is so unnatural about cloning in the end? Just because we are only familiar with the ideas of the "gene pool" and the male+female=baby equation, we can't be ignorant to new approaches to old systems. Plus, natural selection still applies (i.e., self-reproducing aeombae would be long-extinct if they could not survive).
Cloning is just human evolution happening under our eyes. I'm sure things will work out fine with everything. People won't make slave races, because as far as I know, all people, including clones, are treated as equal humans. Slavery, as far as I know, is prohibited in most countries, so unless some dope repeals constitutions, etc., slavery will NOT exist. (A previous poster related back to the days of slavery and I must say that it was quite an ignorant post).
So I ask in conclusion: what's the big deal?
Not to go offtopic on Mac OS X, but X is the opposite of the crude OS 9. Anyway, Apple is offering a fair solution of allowing the user to run the old operating system within its own process (Classic). That way they don't have to for the most part worry about weeding out a few function calls for every upgrade or disallowing programs to run (with the exception of some disk utilities). Apple isn't declaring themselves bosses of the computer users of the world and making profound "You can't use this software/driver, etc."...
MS could at least be sensible in this so-called transition period.
I've never used Windows XP, but I have used two other products that use Microsoft's feature of "Error Reporting". I am the admin of a medium-sized Windows network of about 25 users (but I use Mac OS X and LinuxPPC at home). This happens to me at work all the time: Someone will come up to me and say, "Uh, something came up on my computer and said something about a problem and to say yes to help fix it. I clicked Yes. Was that OK?" How many people will say, "Duh, uh, OK Microsoft sure I'll help you fix my problem." Most computer users out there aren't knowledgeable to take candy from strangers (or, in this case, to give the candy). Maybe many /.ers will know to choose whether or not to send a crash dump, but what about that person's spouse who checks his or her email at night, and IE crashes and then he or she sends the crash dump. The point is that Microsoft will end up getting the informationthey want, regardless to whether or not they appear to be voluntary.
Regarding your issue with the Sidewinder, the reason for that is twofold: 1) they want you to buy another $100+ joystick that has the features you want 2) keyboard mapping allows programmers to bypass Microsoft APIs like DirectInput because anyone can program the keyboard without an API - MS wants to stop those programmers nasty habits of making things too portable to other OSes.
By the way I agree with a previous poster who said that MS would ignore official "watch-dogs"; I'm sure somewhere deep down they will have a nice tally of how many people have 600 KB porno MPEGs in their RAM right after the memory segments with the emails to their wives.
I think we should find the answer to whether the Monkey Quotient is true, considering we have an endless source of random information. O Romeo, O Banana
Microsoft is really pushing its format, specifically audio because of its superiority over MP3 and the fact that most audio is stored on expensive flash memory (yes, it's true -- a 64kbps WMA file sounds just as good as a 128kbps MP3). If you don't believe me, check out the Windows Media Site and look at the hardware section.
Windows Media Audio is not the same as MP3, at all. WMA is a completely separate format developed by Microsoft in direct competition to the MPEG formats, specifically MP3.
True, many Windows Media Streams such as ASFs happen to have MP3 as its audio codec, but when a stream is in WMA, it has been proven over and over that Windows Media Audio sounds far better than MP3 when compared at the same bitrates. If you have the newest version of Winamp there is even a WMA compressor plug-in that you can try out to prove it to yourself.
Sorry if I sound too much like a Microsoft advocate on this, but Windows Media really impresses me and I hope it goes open soon.